User talk:Zosodada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those Wikipedians interested in punctuation, check out Karen Elizabeth Gordon's grammaries and guides. [1]

Please cite your sources, folks! Yes, I know it's a pain (especially if you don't have a source, are making an ass-umption, inseting an opinion, &c.), but how else are other Wikipedians supposed to check the accuracy of your inclusions? Wikipedia is not a tool for propagandists.

Contents

[edit] Who is Zosodada ?

Filmtechniker --80.219.135.90 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mail

Tossing Turabian?
"MPF Please see brackets" - seen it. It is normal to give references in parentheses. These are not the same as the formatting square brackets used in external links... I couldn't give a toss about Turabian. It is American, and this is not an American article. - MPF 01:04, 2 Jan 2005

Thanks for looking, here's a useful link that has it [2]" Note that the Chicago Manual and Turabian are essentially the same. You'll find close adherence to this form even in European texts (e.g., Brill in Leiden and perhaps Oxford who may have their own recommended stylesheets that I have not read. I would, however, be interested in differences in the Oxford style if you are familiar with them). Note no parenthesis on above citation. And thanks again for your diligence in looking this up.-- z.

I should note that Oxford style does prescribe serial commas between items, e.g. "two umbrellas, three sewing machines, and a pair of gloves" rather than the "two umbrellas, three sewing machines and a pair of gloves" that I would prefer, but I do make an effort in this regard. However this is tangental to the issue of brackets in parentheses. I suspect this might be a habit picked up from including the date of movies after the title (in parentheses).

Tossing Tilly,
Hi, The [Tilly Smith tale] has been widely reported in more reputable media, and there are even sources for bobbing boats (but I edited the bobbing boats out for brevity). It's fairly certain that the story is genuine... See Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, or search http://news.google.com/ with "Tilly Smith" or "Andrew Kearney". You're making too much of the fact that it was the Sun that originally reported the story. Other credible sources have widely reported it and they presumably did some fact checking. I'm sure television news in the UK, always looking for a human interest story, have already interviewed the girl and the teacher and some of the other people who were on the beach. There's no reason to believe this is a hoax. -- Curps 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As explained earlier and elsewhere the "other credible scources" were recycling the same Sun UK story. This issue is not "hoax" -- it's simply a poor choice from a questionable *and copyrighted* source to be included in an encyclopedia. -- Zosodada 19:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How is copyright relevant? The wording was not copied verbatim in any way whatsoever [Yes, it was in its early incarnation, right down to "bobbing boats" -- Z.] ; it was summarized in a sentence or two. If the truth of the story is not in question [I would question the truth -- well, "accuracy" -- of any Sun UK story. --Z.] , then your personal distate for the Sun newspaper is not an issue. -- Curps 05:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I actually like the Sun UK, especially the Page Three Girl and the reviews of UK reality shows. Then again, I also like the Weekly World News. I would not, however, quote either in an academic paper. An encyclopedia should conform to academic standards. Copyright here suggests that the recyclers of this story paid a fee to the Sun and/or the original reporter to use their/his material. The original story also quoted the hotel manager and mentioned "Marriott" suggesting the reporter was thereby given a night at the Marriott. That's the way yellow journalism often works. Zosodada 05:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One Tsunami... Two Tsunami?
Please see rules for use for foreign words in English [3]Revmachine21

I disagree, see Talk:Tsunami#Plural of tsunami is tsunami -- Curps 05:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Revmachine, your link says:"Because these words follow the rules of other languages, it is best to check a dictionary when making them plural." I just checked the dictionary. In English, it's "Tsunamis", plural. In Japanese, it's "Tsunami" plural. This is the English version of Wikipedia. Zosodada 05:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Burma
Of course not, but in the case of Burma it is clear that the problem is not "political instability" - the country has been run by the army for more than 40 years. Burma's problem is that its government is corrupt, oppresive and incompetent. It could use some instability. Adam 12:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Replied on Adam's talk page--z.]

Oooops!
Hi, please use Wikipedia:Categories for deletion instead of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if you want to get a category deleted. I have moved your deletion request about Category:Zoroastrian gods there. Cheers, jni 16:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Thanked Jni on hir talk page. I really messed that one up, a Wiki tangle exacerbated by a behind the scenes frostbite incident here--z.]

A note from "spettro6(at)lycos.com" a.k.a "221.217.167.93"
"this is spettro9, were you talking to me or that other guy about opinions? [The Wikipedia user group in general.-- z.] on the Indo-European talk page, telling someone to cite something is fine, but don't assume that someone could not back something up with reasons and/or facts [okay, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but "could not" implies "did not"... and, perhaps, "should have"... -- z.] and anyway, if someone says something that is so obviously an opinion, then people will see it as such [-- and take approprite steps to edit it out, I would hope. -- z.] reasons are reasons, it is when people get the reasons mixed up, or forget to look for them, that we have the word opinion for [Wikipedia is not the place for opinions or original research. PS: I would advise you to list your email address as "spettro6-AT-lycos.com" or otherwise affect some similar spam-foiling devise. And thanks for your opinion. --z.]

NOTE: I have made no comments on the "Indo-European talk page"... Investigation suggests "spettro9" was referring to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks.--Zosodada 22:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Degenerate Art

Hi! It is a pleasure to meet someone who is as much a stickler for sources as I am. This article has only been reconstructed for one week (after being abandoned for months), and the secondary citations were not only listed in the article itself; the primary German literaturecites were in the talk page, and I was in the process of moving them from the talk page into the article - based on another person's advice. Everything can't be done at the speed of light - that is why there is a Talk Page. Nevertheless, you nailed the weakest links in the article right on the head, and I can't argue with that. Yes: there are phrases that ARE POV and need to be revised; however, There IS NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH in this article. I am trying so hard to bring this up to featured status and keep it protected from vandalism. You want sources? I've got them in German and English. This is my field of expertise. That does not mean that Wikipedia is my field of expertise. Believe me, I understand the difference. So please- critique; question; point out those POVs, but in doing so, collaborate before a revert? Many thanks. --allie 02:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, allie, I don't plan to spend much time on that particular article and haven't reverted anything on it. My "cite your sources" header (above) is general advice. The edits I made were in consideration of ambiguities that suggested bias (although I don't think the suggestion of bias was intentional). I think the "Trillions of deutche Marks for a loaf of bread" was hyperbole (or bad data? possibly vandalism?). However, citing a source for the cost of bread during the Nazi regime is a task I will gladly leave to others. Good luck with your work on that article, it's a very interesing subject. Zosodada 03:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Zosodada, you made some great points. Yes, a loaf of bread actually did rise to a trillion marks at the height of Weimar inflation. It's established, not hyperbole. Hardly a task, and already cited in the literature. [ I find citations that say "one mark" was inflated to "one trillionth" of its value, e.g. from a Holocaust memorial foundation. Okay, assuming that is an unbiased source, now we need to know the cost of bread. This implies that one loaf of bread cost one mark -- I would say that a loaf of bread would have been a fraction of one mark at that time, in the US bread was five cents and I believe the mark was worth several dollars. Theoretically if one mark was , say, $2.00 US and bread was 5 cents -- well, what's one fortieth of a trillion? 2.5 million -- a considerable difference. Unfortunately, I don't have the determination to investigate the matter. Then again, it's not an article I consider a project of mine. Sorry. -- z.] I was under the impression that excessive footnoting was not appropriate on Wikipedia, ["Excessive" is a subjective word --z. ) and assume (a dangerous thing to do) that it's in the Weimar article, but will check. [Here's a footnote [4] to assist you on the "bread = one mark"implication. ---z.] Ditto on the most popular MODERN ART exhibit of the twentieth century - not as difficult as you might think, at all. the name of the book is indeed, Degeneration [ Ah! Okay, I understand the italics in the quote now, thanks! I was clearly confused by that one.--z.] and the proper spelling is indeed, entarte Kunste (lower cap "e") [ At the beginning of a sentence it looks wrong. I don't read German so I'll leave that to you. ]. Not sure what your point is re: Nordau's Degeneration theory v. Rosenberg's book...obviously I didn't state that clearly, so will reword. [ I don't recall a point on that, sorry.] The Nazi's referred to Heroic Art as a genre. Guess I'll have to add to that as well? Pseudosceintific- awesome catch. [That's what caught my eye in the first place -- well, that, the bread and two clipped-off sentences.--z.] Many thanks! [Ditto!--z.] I don't know what happened to that incomplete sentence will clean it up re: "product of an artist...." Correct again. Gosh, YOU ARE DANG GOOD! Why do people get upset when someone like you comes in to point out the inherent weaknesses in writing an encyclopedic entry? I don't understand that. I am very grateful, and thanks so much for your help. Frankly, after reading your edits, I think there are a lot of POVs that I should take out, especially in the intro (which clearly needs fleshing out) and et. cetera. Many thanks for your time, --allie 10:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) [Thanks for reviewing the concerns and taking action! :) -- and good luck with that project. -- z.]
Deleting Nordau's obit. Prophet/statement:moot. Irrelevant to the exhibit. Implied POV that leads reader to make assumptions ergo, inappropriate. Yes? Thanx for link. Best regards --allie 23:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, calling Rosenberg, an architecht of Lebestraum, a "influential art critic" does itself to inappropriate conclusions as well. I suspect that the article had at one point been tainted with holocaust revisionism. --z.3

[edit] Bad Edit of the Day Award

"Vlasic, a brand name for a company that sells
pickles in North America uses
this child-bearing stork as a mascot
(it is unknown if this is an intentional
phallic reference). This may
be related to the myth of Mopsus (see below)."

Changed to:

"For the origins of this stock image, see below." [sic]

(From one of the top 100 most frequent editors)

[edit] Cite, Cite, Cite

I've been working on a "web mining" page, partly because I enjoy frequenting the Wikipedia Reference Desk. But it's turning into a useful tool to hunt down information for those pesky citations on the web. It's slow going, but I think you might like it. Take a look if you have the inclination. Hmmm. can't link it. Have go to it from my user page...not sure why Best --allie 21:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I saw it in Recent Articles. I think I'm going to stay focused on the history of cinema for a while unless a bias or misinformation issue jumps out at me. I'm looking forward to the movies of the 60's and 70's, but I'm still in the 20's and 30's due to claims in the original version that aren't holding up to scrutiny. --z.
Hmm...I have a link to Oscar awards; box office rankings; and foreign films. If I find any other useful links, I'll let you know. --allie 19:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stork

I've run through this article again, less controversially I hope. I've done some general tidying, and slightly rephrased your feeding/nesting additions, since they may not apply to all stork species.

There is a understandable tendency throughout this article for contributors, familar with the White Stork, to make comments that really only apply to that species, rather than all the family. A similar situation occurs with the Peafowl and Turkey (bird) articles, where one species is far better known than the others. jimfbleak 06:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great -- good work!Zosodada 06:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Everett Smith

You should use the "move" function (at the top of the page) to move pages (like moving Harry Smith (musicologist) → Harry Everett Smith) instead of just doing a cut-and-paste and recreating the article at the new title. Using the "move" function preserves the article history. -- Curps 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry and thanks for the tip, now I know. Zosodada 21:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You were right, my edit did inadvertently edit an older version (16:45 UTC) of the page. That was a side-effect of merging the page histories. It should be fixed now. -- Curps 21:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Will use "move" next time.

[edit] Aryan

Hi I'm here to ask why you categorised the "Aryan" page as having systemic bias. Could you please explain what you believe the systemic bias to be? Thanks. Paul B 17:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I had to take a break from Wikipedia because I was tired of the excessive requests for expounding on the obvious. The POV in the article has been considerably improved upon in the last few months. Zosodada

Golly gosh. And what, pray, was the POV? I'm glad you are back and responsive at long last. So, who is Yu-gi-od. Is he a friend of Ta du ray me fah, or whoever he is? Do you really believe that I was trying to sell SS memorabilia??? It was joke reply to a silly and misplaced question. If you do, perhaps that explains your mysterious opinion that "POV" is to be found in the Aryan article. Paul B 21:19 22 June 2005 (UTC)
btw, systemic bias and POV are two wholly different things. I suggest you check out what the phrase systemic bias is intended to mean before categorising articles with the label. Paul B 11:19 24 June 2005 (UTC)

<<Do you really believe that I was trying to sell SS memorabilia???>>

Yes, I do, the page history stands as documentary evidence.13:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it does. As anyone with common sense can see, it was a joke. Hence the references to Oasis etc. Paul B 13:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow... what a frighteningly speedy response. Have you been re-loading my talk page for the past 20 days? For jokes try the Unencyclopedia. [5] Zosodada 14:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, if you acknowledge that it's "just a joke" why are you surprised and argumentive about it being edited out? Zosodada
I came here to ask a question, which you have, for reasons best known to yourself, signally failed to answer. I think my exasperation is understandable. I don't care tuppence about the comments being edited out. I care about your misrepresentations of my intent, as evidenced by your statements on my user page. Btw, I wouldn't recognise an SS song even if one was sung to me by the entire cast of Springtime for Hitler. Paul B 15:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Re. your question: Fortunately, other editors have recognised the bias without explicit discussion regarding the now-three-month-old edits and are continually hard at work keeping it in check despite continuing efforts to devolve the article into a bastion of "fringe theory." Capiche? As far as your intent goes, only you know. The rest of us are left to guess at what they may be by your edits. Zosodada.
Well perhaps you should look at the edits and comments in discussions I've actually made, including those on the Aryan article, before jumping to conclusions. As it happens one of my main scholarly interests is in nineteenth century theories of ethnicity and ancient history in relation to shifting models of religious and ethnic/racial identities. That extends, in part, to the ideological background of Nazi Aryanism, but centres on British imperial ideologies. In my experience most of the editors who wish to turn Aryan-related articles into "bastions of fringe theory" are Indian Nationalists (Hindutva). Pro-Nazi edits are few.
You still seem to misunderstand the purpose of systemic bias tag, since you persist in confusing it with POV. Capiche? And you remain as obscure as ever on the subject of just what fringe theories or POV you are complaining of. Paul B 15:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
"Scholarly interests"? In what school do you engage in these interests? - z.
Look me up, genius. I'm not difficult to find. [6] Paul B 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
[7] I see nothing related to the subject in your course list.
And your point is what? I have given several refereed conference papers on the subject. But you are playing this silly game. Your claim to expertise is... what? I don't care, as it happens, if you have no qualifications, but you are the one playing this silly game of demanding proof of expertise while refusing to provide any yourself — doesn't seem very honest, that. Paul B 21:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
My point is that you were providing links to commercial sites and encouraging sales of SS merchandise on Wikipedia. Thanks for the opportunity to de-obsfucate our discussion. 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)



thanks for your recognition, Zosodada. Yes, the Aryan related articles are troubled waters... :) dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Films Noirs (sic)

You are wrong about the spelling of the plural of film noir. See the talk page.


My response to the above anonymous poster was on the referenced page, but seems to have been edited out. I suppose it's still in the history. " "Films noirs" is correct in French; this is the English version of Wikipedia, thus 'Film noirs' -- as widely used in the English and American literature on the subject -- should be preferred. Try a more authoritative source than the Microsoft dictionary, perhaps a well-respected source of film literature, i.e. Oxford History of World Cinema; Film Comment; Film Noir Reader &c.* It's obvious that someone feels very strongly about using the rules of the French language for an English trans-neologism within English text so I won't contribute to that page any longer (I don't feel it's quite that an important of a point to continue in an edit war with an anonymous brick wall). Feel free to refer to higher authorities on the matter than myself -- and higher authorities than the editors at the MSN dictionary (for a good dictionary I recommend the American Heritage and/or the OED). I understand the confusion on the matter and liken it to the discussion of "Tsunami/tsunamis" above. Transliterations don't take the rules of the originating language with them when they travel, they are modified to fit the adoptive language. Zosodada
  • The following academic articles from the Film Noir Reader should be of interest: "Creativity and Evaluation: Two Film Noirs of the Fifties" by Robin Wood and "Mann in the Dark: the Films Noir of Anthony Mann" by Robert E. Smith. [8]



[edit] Spiel

An article you started, Spiel, has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 19:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Thanks for the heads up -- it looks to be fairly well-tended to. --Z.

[edit] Wikiproject: countering systemic bias

Hi Zosodada, I wonder if you might be able to help - I'm writing an article for openDemocracy about the Wikiproject:countering systemic bias. I'd like to get some quotes from Wikipedians about why they're involved, what they're working on and some other general issues. I wonder if you'd be willing to talk to me over email? Mine is d-vidd-riusbij-n@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks,

David

86.133.23.227 18:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Response via email. Address crypted. -- Z.

[edit] AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up -- I've been away from WP, but this looks like it's tended-to -- I would advocate folding "Political Terrorism" into "Terrorism"... ---Z.

[edit] Patrick Volkerding

Hey Z, when you have a chance, please check my response on the talk page for that article. --Ori Livneh (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure meaning

Hi! In the article about Whitey on The Moon, what does the phrase "illustrative of prison-style recreational poetry" mean? --Daĉjoпочта 09:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/o/s/User_talk%7EZosodada_1952.html"